A: No. ISP does not provide professional health or medical services of any kind, nor can we direct folks to service providers in their area. Furthermore, the content provided on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be construed as, medical or mental health advice. It is not intended to replace professional diagnosis, treatment, or care. Individuals are strongly encouraged to seek assistance from qualified healthcare professionals for any medical or psychological concerns.

A: ISP is eager to share content and support partners who share our goals and values. Reach out to us to explore possible collaborations and/or sharing of materials. 

A: No. ISP is global. 

A: All donations to ISP are tax deductible in the United States. 

A: We’re happy to meet new partners and explore various ways of collaborating, though we are not primarily a funding or grant-making organization.

A: There are many impactful mental health and psychosocial support projects around the world. We are particularly supportive of those that prioritize participant safety, rigorous training, and accountability, and we continue to learn from partners around the world. We also acknowledge that there is much yet to learn and explore and that historically, mainstream mental health research and practice has not sufficiently engaged with enduring practices in communities that exist outside of secular, biomedical conceptualizations of health and healing. Additionally, research and implementation dollars have traditionally been funneled to a narrow set of activities, limiting both innovation and the strengthening of local care systems. Our perspective of “inner safety” seeks to adjust how we think about mental health and psychosocial support, leaving and honoring the critical role of specialized care, while also embracing a comprehensive approach that mitigates and confronts the potential deleterious effects to mental health due to war and disasters. 

A: Our approach is reminiscent of various understandings of “resilience.” Our use of the language of “safety” as opposed to “resilience” is a deliberate choice that specifically acknowledges the aspirations of folks who have lived through war and disaster. Communities deserve and desire to feel safe more than they desire to be resilient, and creating the external and internal conditions that make safety possible should be our ultimate goal while also acknowledging the importance of resilience in the face of adversity.